Madhya Pradesh Court May 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Muzahid HussaIn and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: [1995(71)FLR405]; (1998)IIILLJ333MP
S.K. Dubey, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the award dated January 27, 1994 pronounced on February 21, 1994 passed in case No. 18/ ROA/Reference by the Labour Court, Durg (Annexure P-2), whereby the Respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated with full back wages as oral order of discontinuance of service of Respondent No. 1 was held to be illegal as passed in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that the respondent was continuously in the employment for a period of 240 days preceding to the date of discontinuance. In any case the workman was not entitled to back wages as he has not led evidence of remaining unemployed during the period of forced unemployment. 3. Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the workman was in continuous employment f...
Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Industrial Court ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: (1998)IIILLJ709MP; 1996(0)MPLJ777
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the two petitions namely M.P. 2191/1989 filed by the Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant v. The Industrial Court and Anr. and M.P. 3878/1988 - Shri Sitaram Soni v. Bhilai Steel Plant and Anr.. In M.P. No. 2191/1989 the employer is aggrieved of the order dated October 21, 1988 of the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 677/MPIR/I987 (Annexure A-XI) whereby the order dated, June 18, 1987 of Labour Court, Raipur passed in case No. 230/80/MPRI (Annexure A-X) setting aside the order of employee's services directing reinstatement with full back wages was set aside, and the employee was ordered to be reinstated with fifty per cent of back wages from the date of termination i.e. Augustas, 1974 till the date of the order of Labour Court holding that the punishment of dismissal fromservice for disobeying the order of his superiorwas harsh and excessive as on facts the IndustrialCourt recorded a finding that in the cha...
Gajraj Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ646
ORDERT.S. Doabia, J.1. Counsel heard.This is a petition preferred against an order by which an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as barred by limitation. The basic order was passed by the Competent Authority on 4-5-1993. The appeal was preferred against the above order on 23-8-1993. This was done after a period of 110 days from the date the order was passed. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. It was observed that the period of limitation is 30 days.The only argument raised in this petition is that under Rule 5(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Rules, 1976, the draft statement is to be served on the owner by a registered post. It has, however, been provided that in case this registered post service is refused then it would be treated as a valid service. Rule 5(1) and (2) reads as under :-'5. Particulars to be contained in draft statement as regards vacant lands and manner of service of the same. - (1) Every draft state...
Expo Machinery Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ896
ORDERS.K. Dubey, J.1. The petitioner employer, by this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has challenged the ex parte award of the Labour Court (Annexure P-2) dated 15-7-1987 directing reinstatement and the order dated 10-8-1987, modifying the award of reinstatement with back wages and the order dated 20-2-1991 dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award.2. Facts are not in much dispute. Respondent No. 4 was employed on 1-12-1981 in the establishment of the petitioner whose services were terminated vide order dated 27-4-1983. The Respondent No. 4 raised an industrial dispute which was referred under Sections 10 and 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act') for adjudication of the Labour Court at Bhopal. The Labour Court issued the notice to the parties. The respondent No. 4 filed its statement of claim so as also the petitioner filed the written statement taking plea that the respondent No. 4 was employed...
Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(51)ECC102; 1995LC40(MP); 1995(80)ELT774(MP)
ORDER1. This appeal and the other connected appeals have been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 8-9-1994 in M.P. No. 779/89, M.P. No. 1099/88, M.P. No. 1101/88, M.P. No. 1356/88, M.P. No. 932/90, M.P. No. 933/90 and M.P. No. 1076/90, by which show cause notices issued to the Respondents in all the cases by the appellant No. 3, the Additional Collector, Central Excise, have been quashed.2. This order shall also govern disposal of L.P.A. No. 15/95, L.P.A. No. 132/94, L.P.A. No. 133/94, L.P.A. No. 134/94, L.P.A. No. 135/94 and L.P.A. No. 136/94, as common questions of law and facts were involved in all these appeals.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are mentioned herein below. The respondents in these appeals (petitioners in the main petitions) had constructed sheds in their respective factories with the aid of duty paid product and material. The sheds were built with the help of trusses, ...
Sanjay Singh Thakur, Bilaspur Vs. Sultan Ahmad, Bilaspur, M.P. and ors ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: II(1997)ACC410; 1996ACJ261; AIR1996MP30; 1996(0)MPLJ83
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. This order shall also dispose of M.A. No. 3/90 (Sanjay Singh Thakur v. Smt. Asinbai and 3 others).2. On 24-5-87, the jeep No. M.P.K. 2004 driven by respondent No. 2, Jitendra Pandey met with an accident near village Khamaria and 2 persons namely Subhan Ansari and Moujiram alias Maniram died. 2 separate claim cases were filed by their legal representatives which were registered as Claim Case No. 28/87 in the matter of death of Subhan Ansari and Claim Case No. 29/87 in the matter of death of Moujiram. In both the cases the present appellant Sanjay Singh Thakur as the registered owner of the vehicle was made a party and respondent No. 3 Nagendra Pandey was also made a party on the allegation that the vehicle was sold to him by the present appellant. In both the cases application Under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed. Sanjay Singh the present appellant submitted that he had sold the vehicle on 18-5-87 to respondent No. 3 and the possession of the vehic...
Ram Das Agrawal and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: AIR1996MP96; 1996(0)MPLJ177
R.S. Garg, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of M. P. No. 3727/93 Satya Narayan Mishrilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M.P. 3807/93, Laxmi Narayan Mining Company v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 4246/93, Nirmal Chand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and M. P. No. 5113/93 M. P. Lime Manufacturers Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others. By these petitions the petitioners in various petition above prayed for issuance of the writ that Rule 25(viii-b) of M. P. Minor Minerals Rule, 1961 be declared ultra vires, to quash the action of the agents of the respondents by which they are issuing pit-passes and also to declare that the respondents had no power or authority to insist for a transit pass issued by their officers for transportation of major minerals and/or to restrain them for seizing the vehicles in absence of the transit passes and have also prayed for a writ of prohibition against the respondents for restraining them from prohibiting the petitioners from transporting the major...
Sardar Kumar Vs. Indirabai
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: II(1995)DMC639
R.S. Garg, J. 1. The appellant-husband, whose application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 11.8.1987, passed in Civil Suit No. 25-A of 1987, has been rejected by order dated 22.4.1989 in Misc. Civil Case No. 10 of 1987, passed by the District Judge, Seoni, has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the parties, who are Hindus, were husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 18.11.1984. On 7.7.1987 the respondent-wife filed an application before the District Judge, Seoni, seeking a divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty. The learned Trial Court in Suit No. 25-A of 1987, holding that the summons was properly served, proceeded ex parte in the matter and finally passed an ex parte decree on 11.8.1987.3. The appellant-husband, as he alleges, having come to know about the ex parte decree, filed an application for setting ...
Sadan Kumar Chaurasia Vs. Indira Bai Sadan Kumar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-04-1995
Reported in: 1997(1)MPLJ124
ORDERR.S. Garg, J.1. The appellant husband, whose application for setting aside the exparte decree dated 11-8-1987, passed in civil suit No. 25-A of 1987. has been rejected by order dated 22-4-1989 in Misc. Civil Case No. 10 of 1987, passed by the District Judge, Seoni, has preferred this appeal under the provisions of Order 43, Rule l(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the parties, who are Hindus, were husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 18-11-1984. On 7-7-1987, the respondent wife filed an application before the District Judge, Seoni, seeking a divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of cruelty. The learned trial Court in suit No. 25-A of 1987, holding that the summons was properly served, proceeded ex parte in the matter and finally passed an exparte decree on 11-8-1987.3. The appellant husband, as he alleges, having come to know about the ex parte decree, filed an application for setti...
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bandu Kashiram Telari
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: May-03-1995
Reported in: 1995(0)MPLJ780
ORDERU.L. Bhat, C.J.1. The matter arises out of Sessions Trial No. 130 of 1992 in the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur where accused respondent is facing charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The Investigating Officer Akhilesh Dwivedi and Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police S. S. Parmar were summoned to appear before the Court and to give evidence on 8-4-1993, other witnesses having already been examined earlier. They were served but they did not appear in Court, Akhilesh Dwivedi, S.I. having informed the Court that he was busy in law and order duty and S. S. Parmar, A.S.I. not having shown the courtesy of giving any information. The same thing was repeated on 15-7-1993 and 14-8-1993. Finally, the Court closed the evidence on 14-8-1993. This order is now challenged in revision by the State.2. The fact that the State has taken the trouble of filing the revision indicates that in the opinion of the State, some worthwhile evidence is already on record. Non-service of medical ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »